|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 16 2015 01:56 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 01:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 16 2015 00:00 ZasZ. wrote:On May 15 2015 23:51 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 23:45 ZasZ. wrote:On May 15 2015 23:40 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:On May 15 2015 22:27 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 22:09 farvacola wrote:On May 15 2015 22:05 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Uhh, that would be the entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration - patients have a right to govern their own bodies (and in the case of legal guardians their kids bodies.) The Helsinki Declaration does not, however, get into a discussion as to the possibility that governments have an interest in protecting children from the stupidity of their legal guardians. Furthermore, since 2000, the DoH is less and less relevant. Edit: and yeah, what puerk said. Yeah because the declaration being specifically concerned with research means that the underlying principles are totally only reserved for when it comes to research... I must once again implore you to ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS (you are 0/3 so far). If you did you would notice that I did not say it was against the declaration specifically but against the foundation, i.e. underlying principles, of it. The same principles concerning right to governing ones own body is by the way present in GCP so the principle stays completely relevant. Ok, because you seem like a more and more delicate snowflake each day, let's nip this "You aren't reading my posts" nonsense in the bud. I'm happy that you'll actually start reading my posts. I don't consider it to be a special snowflake to expect people who decide to reply to my posts to have actually read them. When you don't you are putting words in my mouth which is quite frankly no way to have a discussion. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
You put forth the notion that the "entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration" deals in the right of a patient to the self-determination of his own medical destiny. You then attached this assertion to the idea that it somehow justifies the mindset described by KwarK, that being the all too common "as the guardian of my and my child's body, I know better than the doctor." In other words, you are putting forth the naked assertion that the foundation of the Helsinki Declaration exculpates a mindset that privies skepticism and self-determination above all else when faced with a doctor-ordered vaccination.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say the mindset of the parents was justified - I am however fairly certain I said that it was within their right. Even when it becomes a public health issue. I can see how that part could have been clearer. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:So, as a threshold issue, let's look to the preamble and general principles of the most recent iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. If there's an issue concerning the foundation of a treaty, agreement, or piece of legal writing, stated principles or the reasons behind authorship/promulgation are a good place to look. Preamble
1. The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.
The Declaration is intended to be read as a whole and each of its constituent paragraphs should be applied with consideration of all other relevant paragraphs.
2. Consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles. Ok, so, right out of the gate we have some important caveats being given by the authors. First off, statement 1 makes it very clear that the DoH is intended to address medical research involving human subjects. This is an important starting point because an interpretative argument that suggests that the "entire foundation" of the DOH deals in patient self-determination is going to have to show that the authors of the DoH are operating off of un-stated premises. Yes, all writing and rule-making is done given certain assumptions on the part of authors or promulgators, but in this case, the plain faced nature of that first statement suggests that this document is attempting to limit its scope to that of medical research. Accordingly, the likelihood that the "entire foundation" of the DoH deals in something significantly more general than its stated goal is less likely. Furthermore, when we add in the "read as a whole" and "addressed primarily to physicians" aspects of the preamble, the strength of your assertion seems to wane by the letter. I don't even need to get into the general principles. Given the scope of the DoH as laid out in its preamble, it would seem that the DoH and its foundation are intended to address the obligations of physicians when they experiment, perform research, or otherwise test various ideas against their real-life instantiations. To relate the DoH to the mindset of anti-vaxxers as described by KwarK is to suggest that the DoH somehow impliedly and absolutely exculpates the behavior of parents who refrain from giving their children vaccines as though vaccines are somehow experimental or research-like in character. Yes, the DoH does indicate that it prizes the rights of patients to self-determine their own medical destinies, but it does not do so in an absolute or even general sense. It merely implies that patients have a right to not be experimented on without their consent. The preamble defines what the Declaration of Helsinki applies to, but that is hardly "the underlying principles of the DoH" is it now? Not any more than the preamble to the Declaration of the Independence is the underlying principles of the DoI. So yes, you actually do need to get into the general principles and you do need to examine what are the underlying principles that guided the wording of the declaration. So for starters, let us take a look at the general principles, i.e. the underlying principles, i.e what I have been talking about all along:
4. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician's knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty.
Guess what are the rights of patients? The right to self-determination. It is again mentioned under point 9. Furthermore the declaration repeatedly cites the International Code of Medical Ethics which has as it's bullet nr 2: A PHYSICIAN SHALL respect a competent patient's right to accept or refuse treatment. I think it is more than reasonable to say that one of the underlying ethical principles of the DoH is that humans have a right to govern their own bodies.
So, stop getting so dramatic when people reply to the necessary implications of your posts; as a Dane, it would probably be best if you weren't as quick with the "you can't read my posts" finger, particularly on English-based forums.
You have 3 times failed to comprehend my posts - I don't think it is particularly dramatic to ask you to stop extracting from them what you like and instead actually read what is written. When you get "The DoH says" from "The underlying principles of the DoH" you are putting words in my mouth. I assure you what I write is exactly what I mean - nothing more, nothing less. My nationality should play absolutely no part in this and that you even bring it up is disgraceful on your part. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
Everyone who posts here and reads this thread can read just fine, and when people seem to address something that you believe is not present in your posts, perhaps it's time to think on differences of interpretation instead of bare reading comprehension. Not everyone who posts here and reads this thread are doing so with an open mind. My wording is very carefully chosen for the most part and perhaps that is my mistake. To expect people to actually interpret "the underlying principles of the DoH" to mean "the underlying principles of the DoH" instead of "the DoH says". But for the sake of continuing on a more productive trail of discussion that my English skills (and please take this statement exactly as it is worded): Mandating medical treatment is generally something governments shy away from as it conflicts with the ethical principle of the right to self-determination pervasive to modern healthcare. A danger to the public health would have to be imminent and in the case of vaccination it is almost impossible to make such a case. Not vaccinating is an imminent danger to public health. What do you recommend, we wait for children to start dying from measles before mandating vaccines? I think we would all just rather nobody die from diseases we eradicated long ago. Or this: don't force parents to put their children through the horrors of easy, cheap vaccinations, but if they opt out their kid goes into quarantine with the other unfortunate children of nutbag parents for the rest of their lives. I'm using the term imminent as it is being used in medical law. Which means the danger has to be tangible/death or bodily harm will occur within hours. I personally consider parents who refuse to vaccinate with tried and tested vaccines (i.e. not HPV) to be bordering on neglecting their kids and undue legal guardians. I do however also recognize that we have as a society established some ethical principles which we should be very careful of ignoring as that would somewhat defeat the purpose of establishing said principles. Except that definition of imminent is not applicable to vaccines because if someone's death or bodily harm will occur within hours it is unlikely a vaccine would be effective. It also does not protect children who are unable to be vaccinated for various reasons from the children of irresponsible parents they are exposed to. I would argue that the concept of self-determination, which is extremely important, is not applicable when without the treatment you pose a danger to other people. It's the same reason I think that people with serious mental illness should be forced to take their medication and why there is good reason for mandatory quarantines for people believed to have dangerous contagious illnesses like ebola. I have every right to refuse chemotherapy or radiation treatment for my cancer because that affects me and no one else. I do not think self-determination applies to vaccinations. I agree that it is not a very handy definition for "danger", however that is the one we as a society has decided as the benchmark for when it is okay to violate someones right to self-determination. I.e. a seriously mental ill person has to be in a state of psychosis or a state that can be paralleled to psychosis and as such an imminent danger to either himself or others before you can force him to take medication. Equating quarantines and vaccinations is a stretch as there is no reason to believe an unvaccinated child necessarily is bearer of the disease whilst those placed under quarantine during ebola are people who have shown symptoms of the disease. Vaccines aren't completely safe though and there are side-effects to them. Just not the ones you usually hear from the batshit insane anti-vaxxer crowd. The most common one to the measles vaccine is rash (1-10%), vomiting (1%), diarrhea (1%), urticaria (1%) and upper airway infection (1%). Stuff such as anaphylaxis, Steven-Johnsons (a milder version of toxic epidermal necrosis with "only" a 5% mortality rate), aseptic meningitis, myalgia, arthralgia, thrombocytopenia etc happens with an unknown frequency (so extremely rare). Overall though, vaccines are of course safe because the likelihood of any of those to occur is small compared with the historical risk of attracting measles. I do obviously not disagree that you should of course be allowed to say no to chemotherapy, but it is not as cut'n'dry as you are making it. In fact it is possible for doctors to force you to take treatment if we are talking a highly curable cancer - take Cassandra C for instance. Forcing people to vaccinate opens a potential slippery slope for when it is okay to force medical treatment on someone and it is not something that should be done lightly. EDIT: And then let us all please remember how this started: A bill which would force parents to vaccinate their children if they wanted to put them in kindergarden. That bill is obviously not unreasonable as it does not actually force the parents to vaccinate. Once again, I have been explaining why the government is unwilling to make a bill that would literally mandate vaccination. Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. If you mandate vaccines, it means vaccines are mandated and that doesn't allow for forced medical treatment in any other way, assuming that's how the legislation is written (and it should be). If people then want the government to force people to undergo cancer treatment or any other medical treatment, they'll have to tackle that beast completely separately and I feel they will have a much harder time doing it. It's like the far-right wingnuts who claim legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia or being able to marry your dog. Advocates for those groups, as limited as they may be, are more than welcome to lobby for such things, but they will find support severely lacking.
A slippery slope argument isn't in itself a fallacy. You are right that used as the "far-right wingnuts" use it the argument is a fallacy because that doesn't stand to reason, because the underlying principle between gay marriage (intra-species marriage) and bestiality (inter-species) is quite different just like the underlying principle between gay relationships (two individuals capable of giving informed consent) and pedophilia (one part is unable to give informed consent).
However if you say that you can violate the ethical principle of right to self-determination (mandating vaccines) in one instance, then it stands to reason that you could also violate that principle in other cases (pregnant women being forced to quit smoking/drinking).
|
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first.
|
On May 16 2015 02:11 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 01:56 ZasZ. wrote:On May 16 2015 01:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 16 2015 00:00 ZasZ. wrote:On May 15 2015 23:51 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 23:45 ZasZ. wrote:On May 15 2015 23:40 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:On May 15 2015 22:27 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 22:09 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
The Helsinki Declaration does not, however, get into a discussion as to the possibility that governments have an interest in protecting children from the stupidity of their legal guardians. Furthermore, since 2000, the DoH is less and less relevant.
Edit: and yeah, what puerk said. Yeah because the declaration being specifically concerned with research means that the underlying principles are totally only reserved for when it comes to research... I must once again implore you to ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS (you are 0/3 so far). If you did you would notice that I did not say it was against the declaration specifically but against the foundation, i.e. underlying principles, of it. The same principles concerning right to governing ones own body is by the way present in GCP so the principle stays completely relevant. Ok, because you seem like a more and more delicate snowflake each day, let's nip this "You aren't reading my posts" nonsense in the bud. I'm happy that you'll actually start reading my posts. I don't consider it to be a special snowflake to expect people who decide to reply to my posts to have actually read them. When you don't you are putting words in my mouth which is quite frankly no way to have a discussion. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
You put forth the notion that the "entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration" deals in the right of a patient to the self-determination of his own medical destiny. You then attached this assertion to the idea that it somehow justifies the mindset described by KwarK, that being the all too common "as the guardian of my and my child's body, I know better than the doctor." In other words, you are putting forth the naked assertion that the foundation of the Helsinki Declaration exculpates a mindset that privies skepticism and self-determination above all else when faced with a doctor-ordered vaccination.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say the mindset of the parents was justified - I am however fairly certain I said that it was within their right. Even when it becomes a public health issue. I can see how that part could have been clearer. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:So, as a threshold issue, let's look to the preamble and general principles of the most recent iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. If there's an issue concerning the foundation of a treaty, agreement, or piece of legal writing, stated principles or the reasons behind authorship/promulgation are a good place to look. Preamble
1. The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.
The Declaration is intended to be read as a whole and each of its constituent paragraphs should be applied with consideration of all other relevant paragraphs.
2. Consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles. Ok, so, right out of the gate we have some important caveats being given by the authors. First off, statement 1 makes it very clear that the DoH is intended to address medical research involving human subjects. This is an important starting point because an interpretative argument that suggests that the "entire foundation" of the DOH deals in patient self-determination is going to have to show that the authors of the DoH are operating off of un-stated premises. Yes, all writing and rule-making is done given certain assumptions on the part of authors or promulgators, but in this case, the plain faced nature of that first statement suggests that this document is attempting to limit its scope to that of medical research. Accordingly, the likelihood that the "entire foundation" of the DoH deals in something significantly more general than its stated goal is less likely. Furthermore, when we add in the "read as a whole" and "addressed primarily to physicians" aspects of the preamble, the strength of your assertion seems to wane by the letter. I don't even need to get into the general principles. Given the scope of the DoH as laid out in its preamble, it would seem that the DoH and its foundation are intended to address the obligations of physicians when they experiment, perform research, or otherwise test various ideas against their real-life instantiations. To relate the DoH to the mindset of anti-vaxxers as described by KwarK is to suggest that the DoH somehow impliedly and absolutely exculpates the behavior of parents who refrain from giving their children vaccines as though vaccines are somehow experimental or research-like in character. Yes, the DoH does indicate that it prizes the rights of patients to self-determine their own medical destinies, but it does not do so in an absolute or even general sense. It merely implies that patients have a right to not be experimented on without their consent. The preamble defines what the Declaration of Helsinki applies to, but that is hardly "the underlying principles of the DoH" is it now? Not any more than the preamble to the Declaration of the Independence is the underlying principles of the DoI. So yes, you actually do need to get into the general principles and you do need to examine what are the underlying principles that guided the wording of the declaration. So for starters, let us take a look at the general principles, i.e. the underlying principles, i.e what I have been talking about all along:
4. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician's knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty.
Guess what are the rights of patients? The right to self-determination. It is again mentioned under point 9. Furthermore the declaration repeatedly cites the International Code of Medical Ethics which has as it's bullet nr 2: A PHYSICIAN SHALL respect a competent patient's right to accept or refuse treatment. I think it is more than reasonable to say that one of the underlying ethical principles of the DoH is that humans have a right to govern their own bodies.
So, stop getting so dramatic when people reply to the necessary implications of your posts; as a Dane, it would probably be best if you weren't as quick with the "you can't read my posts" finger, particularly on English-based forums.
You have 3 times failed to comprehend my posts - I don't think it is particularly dramatic to ask you to stop extracting from them what you like and instead actually read what is written. When you get "The DoH says" from "The underlying principles of the DoH" you are putting words in my mouth. I assure you what I write is exactly what I mean - nothing more, nothing less. My nationality should play absolutely no part in this and that you even bring it up is disgraceful on your part. On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
Everyone who posts here and reads this thread can read just fine, and when people seem to address something that you believe is not present in your posts, perhaps it's time to think on differences of interpretation instead of bare reading comprehension. Not everyone who posts here and reads this thread are doing so with an open mind. My wording is very carefully chosen for the most part and perhaps that is my mistake. To expect people to actually interpret "the underlying principles of the DoH" to mean "the underlying principles of the DoH" instead of "the DoH says". But for the sake of continuing on a more productive trail of discussion that my English skills (and please take this statement exactly as it is worded): Mandating medical treatment is generally something governments shy away from as it conflicts with the ethical principle of the right to self-determination pervasive to modern healthcare. A danger to the public health would have to be imminent and in the case of vaccination it is almost impossible to make such a case. Not vaccinating is an imminent danger to public health. What do you recommend, we wait for children to start dying from measles before mandating vaccines? I think we would all just rather nobody die from diseases we eradicated long ago. Or this: don't force parents to put their children through the horrors of easy, cheap vaccinations, but if they opt out their kid goes into quarantine with the other unfortunate children of nutbag parents for the rest of their lives. I'm using the term imminent as it is being used in medical law. Which means the danger has to be tangible/death or bodily harm will occur within hours. I personally consider parents who refuse to vaccinate with tried and tested vaccines (i.e. not HPV) to be bordering on neglecting their kids and undue legal guardians. I do however also recognize that we have as a society established some ethical principles which we should be very careful of ignoring as that would somewhat defeat the purpose of establishing said principles. Except that definition of imminent is not applicable to vaccines because if someone's death or bodily harm will occur within hours it is unlikely a vaccine would be effective. It also does not protect children who are unable to be vaccinated for various reasons from the children of irresponsible parents they are exposed to. I would argue that the concept of self-determination, which is extremely important, is not applicable when without the treatment you pose a danger to other people. It's the same reason I think that people with serious mental illness should be forced to take their medication and why there is good reason for mandatory quarantines for people believed to have dangerous contagious illnesses like ebola. I have every right to refuse chemotherapy or radiation treatment for my cancer because that affects me and no one else. I do not think self-determination applies to vaccinations. I agree that it is not a very handy definition for "danger", however that is the one we as a society has decided as the benchmark for when it is okay to violate someones right to self-determination. I.e. a seriously mental ill person has to be in a state of psychosis or a state that can be paralleled to psychosis and as such an imminent danger to either himself or others before you can force him to take medication. Equating quarantines and vaccinations is a stretch as there is no reason to believe an unvaccinated child necessarily is bearer of the disease whilst those placed under quarantine during ebola are people who have shown symptoms of the disease. Vaccines aren't completely safe though and there are side-effects to them. Just not the ones you usually hear from the batshit insane anti-vaxxer crowd. The most common one to the measles vaccine is rash (1-10%), vomiting (1%), diarrhea (1%), urticaria (1%) and upper airway infection (1%). Stuff such as anaphylaxis, Steven-Johnsons (a milder version of toxic epidermal necrosis with "only" a 5% mortality rate), aseptic meningitis, myalgia, arthralgia, thrombocytopenia etc happens with an unknown frequency (so extremely rare). Overall though, vaccines are of course safe because the likelihood of any of those to occur is small compared with the historical risk of attracting measles. I do obviously not disagree that you should of course be allowed to say no to chemotherapy, but it is not as cut'n'dry as you are making it. In fact it is possible for doctors to force you to take treatment if we are talking a highly curable cancer - take Cassandra C for instance. Forcing people to vaccinate opens a potential slippery slope for when it is okay to force medical treatment on someone and it is not something that should be done lightly. EDIT: And then let us all please remember how this started: A bill which would force parents to vaccinate their children if they wanted to put them in kindergarden. That bill is obviously not unreasonable as it does not actually force the parents to vaccinate. Once again, I have been explaining why the government is unwilling to make a bill that would literally mandate vaccination. Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. If you mandate vaccines, it means vaccines are mandated and that doesn't allow for forced medical treatment in any other way, assuming that's how the legislation is written (and it should be). If people then want the government to force people to undergo cancer treatment or any other medical treatment, they'll have to tackle that beast completely separately and I feel they will have a much harder time doing it. It's like the far-right wingnuts who claim legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia or being able to marry your dog. Advocates for those groups, as limited as they may be, are more than welcome to lobby for such things, but they will find support severely lacking. However if you say that you can violate the ethical principle of right to self-determination (mandating vaccines) in one instance, then it stands to reason that you could also violate that principle in other cases (pregnant women being forced to quit smoking/drinking).
Vaccinations are hardly the best example of this. As such, it leads me to believe for politicians skepticism of government mandate doesn't have anything to do with anything they say.
If it was about freedom they wouldn't be forcing the government into women's uteri
If conservatives had any sense they would be pointing out how forcing medical treatment on pregnant women (for no medical benefit and not free) is an example of this already happening, instead of talking about vaccines which makes them look crazy, stupid, and/or disingenuous.
Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service
provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound
services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not
considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt
to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to
the cost of the procedure.
source
EDIT: The people that were most vocal about the problems with mandating insurance seem to have no problem mandating people get unnecessary medical treatment. The fact that people against mandates from the government never even bring it up undermines the idea that the discussion is really about mandates or government interference between patient and doctor in the first place.
|
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination).
EDIT: I see, thanks for clarifying.
|
On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination).
No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning.
But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light.
|
On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first.
as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are.
|
The weird thing about this situation is that the whole discussion should not be necessary.
There is simply no rational reason to be against vaccinations, and up until a few months ago when that was first mentioned in this thread i did not even know such a thing existed, and would never have thought it possible. The whole idea of being "against vaccinations" just does not fit into my mind. It is utterly and completely baffling to me that any one person would be against vaccines, as there is literally not a single coherent argument against them, and a lot of good arguments for them. Like your children not getting sick. People not dying.
I find it incredibly weird that there is a discussion about forcing people who do not wish to vaccinate their children to do so, because i simply can not explain why that should ever be necessary.
The only reason i can come up with for why someone would not vaccinate their children is that they forgot/didn't know about it. And that can be solved by simply telling them "Ey, did you vaccinate your child?"
The US in general seems to have quite a few fringe groups with utterly insane ideologies that are just not comprehensible to someone not in that group, and i am wondering why that would be the case.
|
On May 16 2015 03:10 Simberto wrote:
The weird thing about this situation is that the whole discussion should not be necessary.
There is simply no rational reason to be against vaccinations, and up until a few months ago when that was first mentioned in this thread i did not even know such a thing existed, and would never have thought it possible. The whole idea of being "against vaccinations" just does not fit into my mind. It is utterly and completely baffling to me that any one person would be against vaccines, as there is literally not a single coherent argument against them, and a lot of good arguments for them. Like your children not getting sick. People not dying.
I find it incredibly weird that there is a discussion about forcing people who do not wish to vaccinate their children to do so, because i simply can not explain why that should ever be necessary.
The only reason i can come up with for why someone would not vaccinate their children is that they forgot/didn't know about it. And that can be solved by simply telling them "Ey, did you vaccinate your child?"
The US in general seems to have quite a few fringe groups with utterly insane ideologies that are just not comprehensible to someone not in that group, and i am wondering why that would be the case.
its not the US, even here in the Netherlands we have idiots who dont believe in vacinations (mostly religious nutjobs).
The reason its seemingly a bigger thing in the US is because it is a nation at odds with itself. A significant portion of the population does not trust the very concept of government and have a very strong belief in that they alone should be allowed to decide what happens in their immediate environment (themselves and their family)
|
On May 16 2015 03:10 Simberto wrote:
The weird thing about this situation is that the whole discussion should not be necessary.
There is simply no rational reason to be against vaccinations, and up until a few months ago when that was first mentioned in this thread i did not even know such a thing existed, and would never have thought it possible. The whole idea of being "against vaccinations" just does not fit into my mind. It is utterly and completely baffling to me that any one person would be against vaccines, as there is literally not a single coherent argument against them, and a lot of good arguments for them. Like your children not getting sick. People not dying.
I find it incredibly weird that there is a discussion about forcing people who do not wish to vaccinate their children to do so, because i simply can not explain why that should ever be necessary.
The only reason i can come up with for why someone would not vaccinate their children is that they forgot/didn't know about it. And that can be solved by simply telling them "Ey, did you vaccinate your child?"
The US in general seems to have quite a few fringe groups with utterly insane ideologies that are just not comprehensible to someone not in that group, and i am wondering why that would be the case.
Those fringe groups vote, usually at a higher rate than average people. Desperate politicians after Obama won turned to those groups because there was enough people there to win mid-term elections. While appealing to the nut-jobs for a mid-term win they alienated more rational voters and in turn lost to Obama again. Now in even more desperate straights (losing elections demographically) they have had the opportunity to either turn away from the crazy or further embrace it.
Jeb Bush is a decent barometer for this. I don't agree with him on plenty but he's been pretty on point as far as defending his views instead of caving to pressure (until this Iraq thing). Bush winning the nomination indicates a move away from the crazy, Carson polling in 1st indicates a move back toward the crazy.
EDIT: in less politically contentious times politicians tend to quell the crazies instead of embracing them.
|
On May 16 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first. as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are.
Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases. But most ways are not perfect.
Also.
On May 16 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination). No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning. But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light.
I don't want to get too into the weeds on abortion, because I am not interested in it, but I don't think your parallel is fair or pertinent, and it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pro-Life viewpoint, as far as I understand it.
In your presentation, they don't care about the sanctity of the women's body and autonomy, but in their minds, they are protecting the interests of a baby, a person, an American. In their mind, the goal is to preserve a life that they don't think the woman should have complete autonomy over. You know that is the case, because they don't mandate ultrasounds on women if they have a broken wrist.
So, just, bad analogy.
|
On May 16 2015 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Jeb Bush is a decent barometer for this. I don't agree with him on plenty but he's been pretty on point as far as defending his views instead of caving to pressure (until this Iraq thing). Bush winning the nomination indicates a move away from the crazy, Carson polling in 1st indicates a move back toward the crazy.
And this is the conundrum: I don't want to vote for him because he's a Bush and employs a lot of his bro's crazy-ass guys. But I want him to win the primary because it would be a step forward for sanity. But I don't want him to win the primary and lose the election because then Team Tea Party will all be "See, this is what happens when you nominate a pro-immigrant, pro-education, not-die-hard-anti-gay, candidate who sticks to his guns instead of caving to our agenda."
Well, maybe he ends up pulling a McCain anyway and seeming like a dream candidate right until he bends over and takes it from the right-wing nutjobs he's always despised.
|
On May 16 2015 03:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first. as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are. Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases. But most ways are not perfect. Also. Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination). No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning. But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light. I don't want to get too into the weeds on abortion, because I am not interested in it, but I don't think your parallel is fair or pertinent, and it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pro-Life viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In your presentation, they don't care about the sanctity of the women's body and autonomy, but in their minds, they are protecting the interests of a baby, a person, an American. In their mind, the goal is to preserve a life that they don't think the woman should have complete autonomy over. You know that is the case, because they don't mandate ultrasounds on women if they have a broken wrist. So, just, bad analogy.
And yet once that fetus is a baby the parents once again gains complete control over it and are free to endanger its life by not having it vaccinated (for example).
Either you have control over your own life from the moment you are conceived (a very hard to define point) until the day you die or someone else gets to make the choices for you until you are capable of doing it on your own (18 for most things).
This half-half approach just exposes the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd.
|
On May 16 2015 03:23 cLutZ wrote:
Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases.
I'm okay with that. Particularly in the special case of children at school. Children should not be at school with untreated contagious diseases any more than drivers should be on the road drunk. And really, any seriously contagious disease should be mandatorily treated at the point where is poses a threat to public health, just like we should have limits on the kinds of dangerous things coming out of your chemical plant. Putting toxic stuff into everybody's space is obviously in the realm of the kind of things that should be regulated.
This coming from a libertarian-leaning independent.
On May 16 2015 03:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 03:23 cLutZ wrote:On May 16 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first. as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are. Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases. But most ways are not perfect. Also. On May 16 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination). No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning. But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light. I don't want to get too into the weeds on abortion, because I am not interested in it, but I don't think your parallel is fair or pertinent, and it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pro-Life viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In your presentation, they don't care about the sanctity of the women's body and autonomy, but in their minds, they are protecting the interests of a baby, a person, an American. In their mind, the goal is to preserve a life that they don't think the woman should have complete autonomy over. You know that is the case, because they don't mandate ultrasounds on women if they have a broken wrist. So, just, bad analogy. And yet once that fetus is a baby the parents once again gains complete control over it and are free to endanger its life by not having it vaccinated (for example). Either you have control over your own life from the moment you are conceived (a very hard to define point) until the day you die or someone else gets to make the choices for you until you are capable of doing it on your own (18 for most things). This half-half approach just exposes the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd.
I'm pro-choice and all, but let's be real: the above is an argument for legal infanticide.
|
On May 16 2015 03:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first. as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are. Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases. But most ways are not perfect. Also. Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination). No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning. But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light. I don't want to get too into the weeds on abortion, because I am not interested in it, but I don't think your parallel is fair or pertinent, and it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pro-Life viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In your presentation, they don't care about the sanctity of the women's body and autonomy, but in their minds, they are protecting the interests of a baby, a person, an American. In their mind, the goal is to preserve a life that they don't think the woman should have complete autonomy over. You know that is the case, because they don't mandate ultrasounds on women if they have a broken wrist. So, just, bad analogy.
An ultrasound is in no way a treatment of the fetus. It also doesn't preserve life. It's an unnecessary and not-free medical treatment forced on women and has no medical benefit for the fetus.
Just because someone thinks they are doing one thing in their head, it doesn't change what they are actually doing in reality.
Realistically it's pretty cruel. Particularly if the abortion is a result of rape/incest or to prevent putting a woman's life at risk.
Abortion is one of those things that will much better legislated when women have better representation.
|
I'm not a great advocate for pro-life because I'm not. But I think it would be beneficial to be expose yourselves (orsameth or GH) to some actual pro-life discussions like an interview with a moderate-pro lifer on Charlie Rose. Because I don't think either of you understand that POV except in its weakest straw-man form.
|
On May 16 2015 03:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2015 02:18 cLutZ wrote:
Its only a slippery slope fallacy if there is a dividing line between the two things that acceptance of one need not necessarily lead to acceptance of another. To show a slippery slope argument is a fallacy you have to point to that line.
Just from the medical treatment thing: Your argument requires that government can force a medical treatment onto someone (violate personal bodily integrity) so there has to be something other than personal bodily integrity that someone refusing chemo can assert that a person refusing a vaccine cannot.
Similarly, in the gay marriage case, we know that you cannot base a law off of morality alone (this fails the "rational basis"), so to disprove the slippery slope, you have to find an interest the state could assert against polygamy that they can't against gay marriage.
I think there are plenty of plausible dividing lines in the second example (social stability, the number 2), but I can't think of many in the first. as to the first, one good one should suffice: contagiousness. Cancer isn't contagious, the diseases vaccinated against are. Thats a pretty good one that "breaks" the slope. But it does expose you to the possibility of mandatory treatment for other contagious diseases. But most ways are not perfect. Also. Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2015 02:36 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm assuming you are not referring to me when you are writing "people" there? I should hope I have made my position sufficiently clear for everyone to know that I'm obviously against such things as that ultrasound (and my views on abortion can be found here on TL which you will find is consistent with an argument concerning right to self-determination). No idea what you've said about abortion, so no, you wouldn't be included generally. I said 'seem' to imply they might actually have a problem with forced ultrasounds and I just missed them mentioning it. It also wasn't directed specifically to people here, more of a general comment on general opposition. Obviously individuals will have their own specific reasoning. But clearly the politicians who fought the insurance mandates have been silent or actually supported mandated unnecessary medical treatment. Clearly putting their BS on full display and calls into question people who mention practically every other mandate but never mention that particular one unless in a positive light. I don't want to get too into the weeds on abortion, because I am not interested in it, but I don't think your parallel is fair or pertinent, and it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pro-Life viewpoint, as far as I understand it. In your presentation, they don't care about the sanctity of the women's body and autonomy, but in their minds, they are protecting the interests of a baby, a person, an American. In their mind, the goal is to preserve a life that they don't think the woman should have complete autonomy over. You know that is the case, because they don't mandate ultrasounds on women if they have a broken wrist. So, just, bad analogy.
I think that there is a valid argument for mandatory treatment of some contagious diseases, but many contagious diseases are at either extreme: life threatening (which doesn't usually require a mandate) or relatively harmless (which shouldn't require a mandate). I don't really care to have the government force parents to keep their children at home when they have the flu; they should do that anyway but infecting other children with the flu is a relatively minor harm. I'd probably be annoyed at that parent if my child got sick as a result of something like that, but at least they are alive and will be right as rain in about a week. The same can't be said for measles, mumps, or any of the other deadly diseases we thought we had eradicated.
Not to also dive in on abortion, but yes, few pro-choice advocates (of which I am one) fully realize the position of the other side. To lifers, the right of the fetus to live is more pressing than the right of the mother to choose. I tend to side with the fully formed human on this issue.
|
On May 16 2015 03:42 cLutZ wrote:
I'm not a great advocate for pro-life because I'm not. But I think it would be beneficial to be expose yourselves (orsameth or GH) to some actual pro-life discussions like an interview with a moderate-pro lifer on Charlie Rose. Because I don't think either of you understand that POV except in its weakest straw-man form.
I was just pointing out the absurdity of who gets to make the choices.
It isn't something i have a strong opinion about but I do believe a women should be able to decide if she wants an abortion (within certain limits)
|
Contagiousness is a bad argument as the kids aren't actually sick and we are not even sure they will ever contract the disease. You are effectively arguing that it is okay to violate the right to self-determination to treat healthy kids. Additionally, were we to accept that contagiousness was an important distinction then what we are really arguing is the potential to harm others right? In that case you really should be in front of the line when it comes to pregnant women smoking/drinking... Furthermore, are you willing to tie people to a bed whilst you treat them for their contagious diseases? The classic case is that of an addict who needs treatment for tuberculosis but is unwilling.
|
On May 16 2015 03:42 cLutZ wrote:
I'm not a great advocate for pro-life because I'm not. But I think it would be beneficial to be expose yourselves (orsameth or GH) to some actual pro-life discussions like an interview with a moderate-pro lifer on Charlie Rose. Because I don't think either of you understand that POV except in its weakest straw-man form.
Totally imagined you were telling me to literally "expose myself" to a pro-lifer on the Charlie Rose set. So then I Imagined streaking through an interview lol....
Anyway, I get what you're saying, and while the vast majority of people don't comprehend the issue like a well articulated person would on that show, since that's the case on most issues, I don't mind dealing with the best form of the argument as opposed to the typical one used (what I think you are referring to by 'straw-man').
The problem with that, provided I accepted it in the way you presented, is it doesn't even work. So besides being unnecessary and potentially cruel, it's not even effective.
On May 16 2015 04:03 Ghostcom wrote:
Contagiousness is a bad argument as the kids aren't actually sick and we are not even sure they will ever contract the disease. You are effectively arguing that it is okay to violate the right to self-determination to treat healthy kids. Additionally, were we to accept that contagiousness was an important distinction then what we are really arguing is the potential to harm others right? In that case you really should be in front of the line when it comes to pregnant women smoking/drinking... Furthermore, are you willing to tie people to a bed whilst you treat them for their contagious diseases? The classic case is that of an addict who needs treatment for tuberculosis but is unwilling.
Again this slippery slope is better exemplified by the stuff surrounding later term miscarriages and such. Right now the argument is over abortion inducing drugs, but it's not far from alcohol or tobacco or other drugs from making that list.
A woman went to prison because she took abortion drugs, the next woman might just try getting blackout drunk or smoking till she goes to the hospital, or swallowing a bottle of morphine (or one of the countless old wives' tales to take care of unwanted pregnancies) in order to avoid prison. Inevitably the same type of people will want to press charges and such.
Vaccines shouldn't even be an issue in the first place, but if the mandating and legislation of individuals bodies is the concern there is a much better example to look at.
|
On May 15 2015 23:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 12:03 coverpunch wrote:On May 15 2015 10:21 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2015 10:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 15 2015 07:53 Nyxisto wrote:
just vaccinate the little fuckers, why does every medical issue have to be turned into some kind of war of freedom : ( Because of the somewhat sad medical history of the US - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment I wish shit like that was why people didn't trust the government but I don't think it is. I don't think most people even know about stuff like that. It's more a general ignorance and distrust of science in my opinion. The same way that people will genuinely believe the government is after their guns to create a police state while their civil liberties are stripped in countless other ways. Distrust doesn't need to be linked to wrongdoing, a lot of people just really enjoy distrust, especially when it allows them to believe that people almost universally agreed to be smarter than they are are wrong and they are uniquely right. This is actually, not true, if you look at actual respondents.![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/02/Why-Do-You-Think-Vaccines-Are-Unsafe.png) Most of these samples seem to indicate that people do fundamentally understand how vaccines work but they veer off at a certain point. you do realize they chose the coherent responses to present a range of responses rather than accurate representation?
They picked samples making the point that no single reason dominates why people are skeptical of vaccines. People aren't showing a broad trend of invoking God, claiming infringement on their rights, or showing scientific ignorance (not completely anyways). So a lot of the argumentation here is off topic because it simply isn't addressing the kinds of things people actually say when they oppose mandatory vaccinations. Pew's main survey shows that people claiming to be Democrats were slightly more likely to claim vaccines were dangerous.
To be fair, the way the debate has played out in the California Senate is even more off base than TL, but that's how you screw up the budget of the world's 7th largest economy with every conceivable blessing.
It is worth noting that very few unvaccinated children are left that way because their parents are claiming a personal benefit. The vast majority have simply fallen behind on the vaccine schedule, which might be a softer anti vax where parents don't like having their kids stuck multiple times. Whether doctors can force them to accept their screaming kids in the name of public health is a very different question. The answer will almost certainly vary if you've ever actually had to deal with such a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
